U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has expressed significant criticism towards the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio for what he perceives as a disregard for legal precedent. In a dissenting opinion, Thomas challenged the recent decision by the lower federal court, which ruled in favor of David Smith, a man previously convicted and jailed for attempted murder. Smith had appealed his 22-year sentence related to an attack on Quortney Tolliver in her mobile home in 2015, claiming improper police influence on eyewitness identification.
Smith's legal team argued that police intervention led to Tolliver prematurely identifying Smith as her attacker, potentially skewing her testimony. This argument swayed the Sixth Circuit to rule in Smith's favor, mandating a retrial nearly a decade after the crime. The ruling requires the State of Ohio to prove the validity of Smith's imprisonment, as determined by the appeals court.
Justice Thomas took issue with this decision, invoking the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). According to Thomas, the AEDPA mandates that courts must first evaluate whether the original ruling aligned with Supreme Court precedents rather than arriving at an independent conclusion. He contended that the Sixth Circuit committed "egregious errors" by deviating from established Supreme Court rulings on applying the AEDPA.
Thomas accused the appellate court of "blatant and repeated disrespect for the rule of law," emphasizing that an identification should only be excluded if there is a "very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." Despite his dissent, the Supreme Court upheld the appeals court's ruling.
Notably, Thomas's dissenting opinion comes amidst ongoing discussions about the consistency of legal precedents. His stance contrasts with his own previous actions in overturning Roe v. Wade, which disregarded decades of legal precedent on abortion rights.
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled” – Samuel Alito
The controversy further highlights the broader discourse on how courts interpret and uphold precedents. While Thomas criticized the Sixth Circuit's approach, his own history of overturning established rulings has led to questions about judicial consistency.